If Breitbart was assassinated, it could be perfectly legal under current US laws and policy.

CIA Lawyers Maintains Citizens Could be Targets if they are at War With the U.S. December 1, 2011

The Associated Press has reported that top national security lawyers in the Obama administration have determined that U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaeda.

Answering questions at a national security conference Thursday about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a radical American-born Muslim cleric who Obama descirbed as "the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Al-Alwaki had been killed in a September 30 U.S. drone strike led by the CIA in the mountains of Yemen. The radical, whos fiery sermons made him a larger-than-life figure in the world of Jihad, had long eluded capture by CIA and Yemeni security operatives.

However, in 2011, after days of surveillance, the New York Times reported, armed drones operated by the CIA took off from a new secret American base in the Arabian Peninsula, crossed into the northern Yemen border and rained a barrage of Hellfire missiles at a car carrying al-Alwaki and other top operatives from Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen.

According to the AP, the government lawyers - CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson - did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy, the AP reported.

What is a weapon?

Is someone who threatened to end the Obama presidency "at war" with the U.S. in the eyes of the president?

IF the president determined that Andrew Breitbart's release of video of his college days would threaten his presidency, and IF the president believes his presidency is essential to the continuation of the US government, THEN the president would be OBLIGATED to remove the threat.

As such he would be required, in his own mind, to issue a presidential finding that Andrew Beritbart needs to be eliminated before the videos are released.

The CIA, would legally be bound to follow the presidential directive and eliminate the threat in a timely fashion.

After all, destabilizing the US government is an act of war, and in perfect alignment with al Qaeda's goals, isn't it? Isn't it?

Although some of us old fashioned folks, bitterly clinging to the Constitution, might argue that it is a freedom of speech issue

There’s one thing that gives me pause though, and that is that if this was an assassination, his family has got to be terrified. I would think they are safe because if any of them gets bumped off any time soon it will only confirm the suspicions. But they may want things quiet just because they know what visibility can do to a person who crosses the Soros thugocracy. We know that Breitbart’s father-in-law changed his story about not knowing anything about a heart condition. My guess is that he first gave his honest answer and then when it became clear that people weren’t buying the “natural death” explanation he got scared for his daughter and grandkids and wanted things to just be quiet so they can grieve.

I can understand that and want to honor that. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to forget that the discrepancies have never been explained. We’ll never know for sure what happened, but it’s suspicious, especially knowing what I do about the threats to the media companies over the eligibility issue - and that Breitbart hadn’t been in the group that was initially threatened, that he had suddenly shown an interest in talking to Arpaio, and that the Soros gang didn’t have time to do the threat thing with Breitbart before he could have spilled the beans on the eligibility story.

If the Soros gang thinks the story of threats (and/or violence to the media if they reported about who he is) is going to fade quietly into the night they have another think coming. This is just the beginning of the public revealing of who these people really are and what they’ve been doing to this once-free nation.

Timing this right after Breitbart had spoken with Arpaio and right before Arpaio gave the press conference serves a very EFFECTIVE warning shot across the bow to any media people who might have been thinking about actually reporting the evidence from the presser.

A Freeper who was at that presser said the air went out of the room as everybody in the room grasped the reality that Obama is a fraud. With that as a backdrop, the reporters’ lapdog attacks on Arpaio rather than addressing the substance of the evidence is a dead giveaway that they had their orders and knew they better obey.

Castle—A mystery show on ABC monday night at 10— rather well written for the most part. About a mystery writer named Castle shadowing and helping a NY police detective who is a beautiful woman. Its rather well done for TV fare— This show as one of the better ones.

Just remember, Breitbart was actually dangerous. He brought down Weiner, he brought down ACORN, he brought down Sherrod (sp?). He was not just some windbag who made people uncomfortable. He actually was cleaning out the rats nest.

273
posted on 03/04/2012 9:46:27 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell. Signed, a fanatic)

"Conspiracy theories" is a nasty propaganda buzzphrase invented by leftist propaganda artists. Many times I post the dictionary defnition of "conspiracy". It does not mean "paranoid fantasy".

I don't know why Breitbart died, and neither do you.

If his wife and friends are reading this, here is my message to them:

Andrew Breitbart was a wonderful, brillianty, funny, courageous and principled human being. His eternal soul - his immortal self - is not extinguished; he continues his journey. And his mission here - to expose "progressive" leftist lies and tyranny and thus de-fang them - will continue, and those on the side of the Constitution will continue to be inspired by Andrew's fighting spirit. He will not be forgotten and many are grieving with you.

And if his death involved foul play, he will be avenged.

275
posted on 03/04/2012 9:54:59 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell. Signed, a fanatic)

As I wrote in another thread, anyone who would dismiss the possibility of an assassination out-of-hand in this case has no understanding of the forces who are opposing freedom and liberty in this fight.

Exactly.

276
posted on 03/04/2012 10:01:39 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell. Signed, a fanatic)

The point isn't whether Breitbart was assassinated, the point is that he could have been, and it would be perfectly legal!

Precisely right. The government has been trashing the Constitution right along. When backing the The Government and remaining faithful to the Constitution become incompatible, the correct choice makes it thus: whoever holds fast to the Constitution is an enemy of the State.

Therefore, Obama and his minions could declare someone hostile to "The Government", because the Government has become as illegitimate as its Chief Executive's usurpations.

278
posted on 03/04/2012 11:49:43 PM PST
by Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)

A relatively young person dying suddenly who is very politically active and has political enemies. And yup, right away, natural causes.

Don't leave out that at CPAC he said he had video, and was going to vett Obama using it. That direct threat of exposing the Usurper for what he is--and isn't--provides a very strong motive for foul play.

280
posted on 03/05/2012 2:55:24 AM PST
by Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)

I think your theory is dead-on. With Obamacare there would be a national database of medical records. That would make it REALLY easy for the government to assassinate people they considered “dangerous to national security”.

I was at the doctor’s office just this afternoon. The receptionist said they had a new privacy policy; would I like a copy? So I said yeah and took and read it. I don’t know if this is new or not, but it struck me as odd:

“Specialized Government Functions. We may use and disclose your medical information for national security and intelligence activities authorized by law or for protective services of the President.”

What does my medical record have to do with “protective services of the President”? There is a different category for “Threats to Health or Safety” - where they say they will disclose or use medical information to “avert a serious threat to health and safety” - including for law enforcement purposes. So the reference to protecting the President is not about the clinic informing somebody that a crazy person is making threats against Obama.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.